Every freelancer starts out undervaluing their work - <AUTHOR> http://kenwestgaard.com/the-gurus-got-5-questions-set-rate/ <comment><USER2> > pass on the cheap, low-value projects. Hold out for the clients that have > budgets and value your time. Every second you spend with clients that don't > have money and don't value your time is another second you have wasted.

I just finished my first 8 months of consulting work and while this is true, it is so difficult to actualize. When we had zero projects, I would take any meetings I could get. A part of me would hope that during the meeting, the client would realize where I could add value and increase their willingness to pay. In reality, however, it was the client who tried to push down our rate time after time. A hard lesson for a novice, but I lost hundreds of hours to clients that I knew, deep down, didn't have the budget.

With that being said, this is dangerous advice to internalize pre-maturely. Without underpricing yourself in the beginning, it's difficult to derive self- worth (IE: confidence) and increase your rate later on. And the last thing you want is an early freelancer to turn down work because they think they are worth more.

TLDR; Underpaid work might just be a rite of passage in freelancing. It was for me.

<comment><USER3> This is why the word "underpriced" always seems wrong to me in this context. Your price at the beginning has to be lower because your profile is lower, which means you have a weaker negotiating position. "Underpriced" only becomes the right word if your rates aren't rising in conjunction with your profile, which does happen for sure, but isn't the case right at the beginning.

<comment><USER4> "Your price at the beginning has to be lower because your profile is lower"

This is the sentiment that makes you justify charging too little.

<comment><USER5> So what is the alternative? If you don't have any cheap clients (cheap labour) or portfolio (free labour), how do you convince clients what you're worth?

<comment><USER6> Arguably, you can invest some of your time in your own portfolio projects that demonstrate the particular skills and value you want to promote. It's not an exact science, and harder in some industries than others, but not impossible, and it's something that too many folks (me included) tend to gloss over or ignore.

Keeping a relevant industry-related blog won't necessarily convince every single client, but it's one of those things that can swing someone's mind to committing to you when there's not a lot of other obvious signals.

<comment><USER3> Why is it better to do free work to build a portfolio of non-professional work, rather than building it by starting with lower-paying engagements?

<comment><USER4> When you build your client base and you start off by charging a low price, any referral work you get (and it gets to be a large portion of your work as the base grows) will have a harder time with raised rates.

The underlying psychology shows us that we undervalue ourselves whereas other people tend not to since they view us as experts. They are generally willing to pay a lot more to have a solved problem than we would want to charge.

Start high and go higher until you meet resistance.

<comment><USER3> > any referral work you get … will have a harder time with raised rates.

This does not seem to mesh with the posted article where they interviewed lots of successful people who started out charging on the low side and were able to aggressively increase over time.

I get what you're saying in this thread, that people tend to not charge enough. Sure, I'm right there with you. What bugs me is this meme that seems to suggest that there's something wrong with doing whatever you can (like charging less) to get your foot in the door. It's intimidating.

<comment><USER4> I agree with your sentiment, my point is that people too often believe that low rates will get their foot in the door.

Many times what would happen is someone would get two or three bids and avoid the lowballer because quality is associated with higher pricing. So you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Now this doesn't always happen but I would suggest to stick on the side of trying to charge more than you're comfortable with. You'll be surprised what you can get your foot in the door with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't get why people are so keen on the per-hour model. This puts a lot of pressure on you to be fully productive and count hours like a lawyer. It also makes you think you're losing money when you're not billing, and the customer likewise feels the time/money pressure.

I've negotiated fixed-price deals where I'm quite certain I can get the job done in x number of weeks, based on having done something similar before. And that's a quite leisurely x weeks, where I'm not really feeling any uncertainty about any part of the project (ie I know what APIs will be used, business logic seems simple, research is done already). At the same time setting a leisurely schedule also means if there is something unexpected, you can spend a bit more time solving it. Or take a break when you're ahead.

Regarding the customers, being choosy appears to be very important. Anyone who mentions outsourcing to (somewhere cheap) is politely moved on. Anyone who doesn't grasp what they're after (a social network, with an iOS and Android app, and videos, and ...) is quoted a longer timeframe. Customers also need to be made aware of the importance of feedback, as in the agile model. That way they always get what they asked for, and you don't waste time on what didn't come to mind.

<comment><USER8> > I don't get why people are so keen on the per-hour model.

How many years have you been doing this? It doesn't sound like you've been at this for too long.

> I've negotiated fixed-price deals where I'm quite certain I can get the job > done in x number of weeks

This works fine for a client who wants a very concrete x, y, or z.

There's a problem with this sort of client. They only want x, y, or z and after you give it to them, well, you're done.

If you have that sort of client and you're charging by the hour, you're an idiot. Quote them a fixed price at something like 500 per hour for what you estimate the work will take. They'll go for it, you make bank.

At some point in your freelancing career you're going to start feeling jealous. Of the "normal" guy. They guy who wakes up every morning knowing he has a full day of work and is working for the same person he worked for yesterday. He knows what to expect, how things operate, etc. Everything is _stable_.

Stability is an illusion, but it's a nice one.

At this point, you're going to start looking for clients who don't want x, y, or z. You're going to look for clients who need x. And some more x. Then some more x. They keep needing x and there's no end.

These clients are professionals. They know the industry. They're not really clients, they're middle men. They're agencies, marketing guys, whatever. They have a constant stream of work. They know it. And they know the best way to maximize their profit is to pay you by the hour. They will only pay you by the hour. They will laugh if you suggest anything else.

It's alluring to you, because you get a ton of work, all the time and you're still billing twice what you'd get working a regular job, and you still get to work from home, set your own hours, specify your own tooling, etc.

At some point, you'll get tired of this and decide you want to be the middle man. You start getting your own clients, hiring other guys to do the work ... and guess what? You're going to pay them by the hour. Because that's how you maximize your profit.

Now, I know there are one-man armies out there who have their own clients, bill fixed price, do all the work themselves and are always busy. I know they're out there because I used to do that. It's exhausting. You have to constantly keep marketing yourself, keep working of course, and wear a bunch of hats at the same time. At some point, you'll have the desire to "outsource" the marketing portion of the equation and that's when you'll start billing by the hour.

<comment><USER9> > These clients are professionals. They know the industry. They're not really > clients, they're middle men. They're agencies, marketing guys, whatever. > They have a constant stream of work. They know it. And they know the best > way to maximize their profit is to pay you by the hour. They will only pay > you by the hour. They will laugh if you suggest anything else.

My experience of working for agencies is they want to pay a fixed price _and will laugh you out of the agency_ at the idea of paying hourly. They don't want risk; they want you to take the risk for their project specification ('cause they've already quoted the client, so you'd better cost less than they quoted...)

What kind of middle men are these who pay per hour?

Or are you talking about _contracting_ , not freelancing?

<comment><USER10> > My experience of working for agencies is they want to pay a fixed price and > will laugh you out of the agency at the idea of paying hourly

Mine too, and I've been at this game for 16 years.

In fact, my usual experience is agencies coming to me with no design or functional specs (even back-of-an-envelope stuff) and wanting a price.

The only time I ever charge by the hour is for maintenance programming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > No one is paying you for your "time," they are paying you for a result, so > stop charging for your "time."

I wish regular employers would adopt this more as well. My value is what I do/produce, not how much time I spent doing it. Some days I produce massive amounts of value, while others I barely get anything valuable done. I'd like a work place that would encourage me to go home and enjoy myself on the bad days and stay as long as I want on the good days, instead of expecting a regular 40 hour work week every week (I have flex, but on average...).

On the other hand, I guess my employer has this issue too. We usually have an upper (money or time) limit on a contract but charge by the hour. And this is pretty much the standard in my industry and a requirement from our clients. How did we end up this way? It makes no sense!

<comment><USER12> > Some days I produce massive amounts of value, while others I barely get > anything valuable done. I'd like a work place that would encourage me to go > home and enjoy myself on the bad days and stay as long as I want on the good > days, instead of expecting a regular 40 hour work week every week (I have > flex, but on average...).

In the words of Stephen King, "Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work."

Very often the value is in just showing up and doing the work. Even if the work isn't your best work, it's still better than no work. You can always fix bad work later. Even if you throw it away and start again, you've already primed yourself on the problem.

<comment><USER13> On the other hand, there's been a lot of value for me clearing the calendar on weekends and just playing videogames for 48 hours. Really sets priorities straight and freshens me up for the upcoming week. This is best used when I can't even make the effort to do "bad work".

I can see where he's coming from.

<comment><USER12> It's a fine line. Sometimes the best thing to do is to walk away and leave the problem for another day. Other times you're just making excuses because you don't know how to solve a problem.

Learning which is which comes from experience I would assume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Every freelancer starts out not having a lot of experience being freelancers and so they make the typical mistake of thinking about their clients as their employer rather than as an investment in a relationship that needs to be developed over time.

Many get too hung up in the value of the services they provide when what they are really selling is trust.

The people that manage to make good money on freelancing aren't always the best at what they do, but they are good at managing expectations and making the client feel like they made the right hire.

<comment><USER15> Managing expectations is so important and you really should learn it early on in your career. If you pad your expectation and then deliver it early you delight. On time and you are still ahead of most freelancers/employees.

If you see problems ahead with the timeline, communicate and let them plan around your delays otherwise you are surprising them in the worst way.

<comment><USER14> Exactly. I found that most clients care way less about "world class" quality than they care about delivering on time since their job is rarely to deliver quality but rather simply to deliver.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Please don't fuck around with the scroll behavior.

<comment><USER17> What did they do? I don't notice anything different.

<comment><USER16> Smooth scrolling but that interferes with my scroll rate and vimium which also optionally does smooth scrolling.

Generally, web designers really shouldn't touch scroll behavior at all, it's rather bad practice.

<comment><USER18> I noticed this and was instantly aggravated by it (it's especially obvious on a Mac because it doesn't do the "rubber-band" bounce at the top and bottom). What purpose does it even serve on this page?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "When I first started, I charged less than $100/hour."

Clearly some of them were on very different paths than me. I taught myself and charging anything over $30/hour would have been deceitful. I couldn't imagine delivering that much value when I was starting.

<comment><USER20> We didn't know how much value our work provides and was worried about giving our clients a raw deal. I think there's nothing wrong with starting with a low rate until we are confident in our abilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> And yet, nobody answered question #2 ( _What was your defining moment when you realized you were worth more than what you were charging_ ) like so:

"I read a blog post or a book on how to charge more."

This is not to say that a post like this doesn't have any value - or a book like Brennan Dunn's book. But sometimes, when I read stuff like that, I wonder how much is actually _survivorship bias_ and how much one can REALLY learn from a post like this.

It's a bit like Amazon reviews of books: Half of them are for people who have read the book and start to discuss things retrospectively.

<comment><USER22> Before I quit my job to start consulting, I read all of (every... single... one) Patrick McKenzie's blog posts and podcasts. That gave me the knowledge that there is a market for results-oriented, bullshit-free consultants, and that clients in that market are willing to pay for results.

So when I quit and self-declared myself a consultant, I went straight to charging premium weekly and monthly rates, as Patrick and others have recommended.

It wasn't $30k/week, and it still took many months to stop feeling like a fraud, but two years later I'm earning a living by working with extremely interesting and successful clients. I altogether skipped the dreaded "cheap freelancer living week-to-week" stage, and I give a lot of credit to Patrick's articles for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For every one good freelancer there are 100 crappy freelancers. The way you go up is via reputation. No better way than working with clients. When you have no reputation you start at zero when you have reputation you can command your price. If you want to start at a high rate prove yourself on GitHub. The gurus might not have been gurus when they started. 😊

<comment><USER24> This. I think good freelancers forget how many bad freelancer there are out there poisoning the waters. Before you can charge like a professional you need to be able to prove you are one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> While I sympathize with the 'value pricing' sentiment, and do use in in some pricing situations, part of the 'value' measurement comes down to the other party's ability to execute and extract the value from whatever I (or my team) produce. Having a time factor in there (X hours, Y weeks, whatever) and having part of all of the price be affected by the time put in reduces that issue, but also generally will tie you to lower profits of any sort.

I've done 100 hours of work for company X, and they were easily able to recognize > $300k of value from that project. Another 100 hours of work for company Y, and they were struggling and complaining about a $7500 charge for that time, as they "didn't see the point" (the original sponsor did, but the rest of the team wasn't executing on the whole project, and nothing was getting done, hence little value arising from anyone's time).

Finding more projects like company X, and fewer like company Y, becomes it's own fun exercise.

</comment><comment><USER25> One thing to remember - those who charge 30K per week (e.g. patio11) do so by doing the work they don't enjoy, and this would be even more non-enjoyable for more hardcore engineers here.

We love making money with programming, not by marketing/SEO/etc...

So the most interesting for us is how to make 30K/week by only pure engineering.

<comment><USER22> > ..so by doing the work they don't enjoy

Hey, speak for yourself. :) I happen to enjoy it very much, and that's what makes my consulting work very rewarding.

<comment><USER25> Yes, I generalized my thoughts and what patio11 said about quitting consulting :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I had trouble remembering which question corresponded to which number as I read the article. It would have been nice to include the question above each person's answer (or maybe a hover over the number reveals the number, or something similar).

<comment><USER27> Had the very same idea. To be able to read this, I opened a TextEdit window where I copy&pasted the questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm one of the "gurus" \- feel free to ask more questions here (see bio for more background)

</comment><comment><USER29> There are so many tangents to go off on, but let me pick this one thing to comment on:

Read Justin Jackson's story about the Mayor vs. the Ad Agency

Whichever price model you chose, you must learn early which clients are just wasting your time. There are no hard and fast rules, often it's just a gut feeling, but here are the mistakes I used to make & how to try to avoid them:

1) People who want to discuss their site for an hour or more on skype are not proper businessmen.

Look for people who's time is money - they have some key questions for you, they don't just want to "chat" about their idea. People who just want to chat - get your hourly rate mentioned early. If you tell them "I charge X" and they still want to talk a bit, then go with your gut, but don't talk more than 15min. with anyone without giving some indication of the price.

2) Don't lower your price unless you are repeatedly being rejected at that price level BY THE TYPE OF CLIENT YOU WANT.

That second part is important - your price will screen out the little projects you aren't really after. Don't worry if it is doing that job. But others will reflexively ask for a better deal, and won't push back hard if you don't budge. $10/hr less at "full-time" costs you $20,000 year that you'll never earn back.

What always seemed to happen to me was, the moment I agreed to a lower rate, someone would come along who was willing to pay full rate, and now I'm massively stressed trying to do everything.

3) Ask to see any specs and/or designs early - offer to sign an NDA right up front

This is to let you see how prepared they are, how professional they are, and if the work is defined well enough to be able to offer a weekly rate. Weekly rates are great, but they can be a harder sell for certain types of work.

4) Weekly rates are NOT risky if you define the number of hours/amount of work you can reasonable expect in a week.

Project rates are dangerous. Weekly rates just mean, "Of course I can do that! You understand that will cost X, correct? Would you like to cut something else out, or just approve the overrun?"

Weekly rates DO mean you need to be professional - you are promising 40-50hrs of actual work. For that reason I often go hourly to keep my personal flexibility.

4) Don't run out an "prepare yourself" for the techs you'll need for this project before signing the contract.

This is for the younger folks starting out, mostly back-end developers. Create a career learning plan of technologies you want to improve at, and use down time to study those. Don't jump around to new languages/server tools/whatever that a potential client mentions & never get good at anything.

To a point that's ok, when you really ARE new and need to get familiar with what is out there & being used, but get away from that habit quickly. If it looks useful, schedule it in your Career learning plan & visit at the appropriate time.

I know there's plenty more, but I think those are solid enough that I feel comfortable offering them to people.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER30> Tangential: if someone wants to get into freelancing, how does one go about it? How do you find gigs? I'm into HPC, Hadoop, etc. and have been contemplating freelancing, for a change.

<comment><USER8> It depends on what area you want to target. Big data would be a niche field. You would need to know your market. Your market being any niche market where big data is relevant. You then target players who are small enough to need your services, but not large enough to need someone full-time doing what you do.

A lot of people see freelancing as some sort of gateway to doing what you enjoy on your terms. I suppose that's half true. The other half is marketing yourself and building a client base. Both halves are necessary.

If you're willing to take a major haircut off your rate (both in terms of what you bill and the service fees you'll pay), you can get low-end clients on the freelancing sites. That should really be seen as training wheels though and not a permanent solution. Low-end clients pay less, give you more grief, and the projects are less interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Isn't the title "12 Gurus Got 5 Questions About How They Set Their Rate"?

<comment><USER32> HN has some form of "no numbers in titles" policy. I'm not even sure list articles are allowed at all.

<comment><USER33> Right, but not against the numbers per se (or else it could just be machine- filtered), but about titles artificially framed in the listicle format:

>If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Anyone else being asked for a user and password?</comment>


CVE-2017-1000082 assigned to systemd, despite Pottering's objection - <AUTHOR> http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2017/q3/76 <comment><USER2> Important context: [https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-...](https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864)

This is the Github issue for this bulb where Poettering said he didn't thing this was a CVE

</comment><comment><USER3> previous discussions of cited issue:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682210)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14681377](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14681377)

<comment><USER4> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14716219](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14716219)</comment></comment>


Intel hits 10nm goals and signals a shift away from traditional CPUs - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/10/intels-10nm-process-is-on-track-so-is-shift-in-business-model/ <comment><AUTHOR> > the company intends to continue making its heaviest bets in areas such as > [...] 5G modems [...]

This looks confusing at first glance since Intel reportedly sold off its 5G modem business to Apple. Turns out they sold the mobile device-specific to Apple but still plan to double down on the infrastructure parts.</comment>


Why Netflix chose AWS-- still valid? - <AUTHOR> http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/four-reasons-we-choose-amazons-cloud-as.html?hn <comment><AUTHOR> This was submitted before, available here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2004998>, but now with our recent AWS drama... I was wondering if everyone thought these reasons still hold up, especially since building out a data center seems to be less expensive than AWS once you hit any sort of scale.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh and this question was sparked by this thread about datacenter ownership:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2482123></comment></comment>


Machine Learning Pushes Us to Define Fairness - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2019/11/how-machine-learning-pushes-us-to-define-fairness <comment><USER2> So in some cases machine learning can force us to acknowledge already existing biases. Like Musicians are male is something it might learn which we may not already acknowledge. It is a bit sad that we would rely on machines to tell us what should be apparent, but if nothing else will, then it is better than nothing.</comment>


Running a startup on Haskell - <AUTHOR> http://bos.github.com/strange-loop-2011/talk/talk.html#(1) <comment><USER2> For background, Bryan gave this talk at the excellent Strange Loop 2011 conference (<https://thestrangeloop.com/>).

Abstract: [https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/running-a-startup-on- has...](https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/running-a-startup-on-haskell)

He also gave a workshop on Sunday (which I unfortunately was not able to attend): [https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/haskell-functional- progr...](https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/haskell-functional-programming- solid-code-big-data)

<comment><USER3> For a different type of background, Bryan O'Sullivan is the author of some of the best Haskell libraries out there. The _de facto_ standard JSON parser/serializer is his doing, for example, and his Riak client is the best I've seen in any language. This guy really knows what he's talking about.

<comment><USER4> I'm very impressed with the amount and quality of libraries they have released on Github [1].

Going to use the following in my "webmachine in Haskell" project.

      - aeson: Fast json library [2]
      - pronk: load test webservers [3]

[1]: <https://github.com/mailrank/> [2]: <https://github.com/mailrank/aeson> [3]: <https://github.com/mailrank/pronk>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So what _is_ "the best compiler bug ever" (slide 31)?

<comment><USER6> There was a certain condition (~ 10 years ago) where if the source file didn't pass the type checker it would be deleted.

Bryan quickly assured everyone that it had since been resolved. =)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7>
      I must hunt down and learn to use a QuickCheck-like library for my language.

      If I can't find one, I should write one.

So what's the (best) equivalent of QuickCheck in Ruby? In other languages?

<comment><USER8> For Ruby: <http://rushcheck.rubyforge.org/about.html>

Check out the citations on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickCheck> for QuickChecks in other languages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone comment on the claim "QuickCheck is shockingly more effective at finding bugs than unit tests"? I'd be interested in hearing other opinions.

<comment><USER10> It's essentially a unit-fuzzing framework, so it can find holes in boundary conditions people generally forget to check, because it's in their blind spot or because "nobody would ever do that".

QC does not care, and since it's injecting fuzzed data at the unit leve (~function, generally) it makes it quite easy to see precisely where the failure happens.

<comment><USER11> Also writing up the laws that the fuzzers checks, is a good exercise in thinking about your API. Read [http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/roll- your-own-window...](http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/roll-your-own- window-manager-part-1-defining-and-testing-a-model/) and [http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/roll-your-own- window...](http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/roll-your-own-window- manager-tracking-focus-with-a-zipper/) for some examples.

Quick also not only gives you the failing cases, but tries to simplify and shrink them first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting that he comes down in favor of Snap. I've been looking at the Snap vs. Yesod question for my own projects, lately, and there's interesting arguments both ways. Yesod is big and comprehensive, with four or five custom DSLs that have compilers implemented in Template Haskell. Snap is tiny, really just a routing engine and server with a small template library tacked on.

Yesod reminds me of Rails, while Snap reminds me of Servlets + JSP.

<comment><USER13> Yesod is a web framework. It is designed to display web pages with some sort of datastore backing them. If you had a CRUD-type app with a few different data models then Yesod will make it really easy to generate the appropriate HTML and forms and make them _type safe_. It extends the Haskell all the way down to the application layer, assuming standard HTML as your primary response and a certain data representation and persistence layer.

Snap (I have only looked at it. Please correct me) seems like it only goes as far as the HTTP layer. It's designed so you can implement web services. Those services might return HTML, but they might return JSON or XML. It doesn't care or help you with your data representation. You have to do your own data persistence and display layers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It appears he's teaching a course at Stanford on Haskell starting next week, MW later in the afternoons.

Taking a class just to learn a language is a bit dodgy, but Haskell is probably a forgivable exception.

<comment><USER15> It's a class in Haskell, not on Haskell.

<comment><USER13> This is a good point. It's "Functional Programming _in_ Haskell". When I first saw the course I think it was titled, "Systems Programming in Haskell."

<comment><USER15> "Functional Systems in Haskell". I think it's still based on systems programming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is pretty disappointing that they decided to go with c# for the local client. This pretty much guarantees that it will not work on Linux.

<comment><USER17> Not really, as long as they don't use Windows API directly and rely on .NET Framework they should be able to run it on MONO.

<comment><USER6> He said in the Q&A that they used C# specifically to target integrating with Outlook, so that wouldn't apply in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really like the idea of QuickCheck. Presumably it is -best- used in conjunction with unit testing. It seems to me though that it would be suitable mainly for numeric type code, given the random nature of the inputs?

<comment><USER19> Remember that Haskell datatypes are very rich. QuickCheck will generate random instances of any datatype you define. Because Haskell datatypes are so expressive,. t's normal for Haskell programmers to define complex types for their functions to process. Hence you can easily get good coverage of any idiomatic Haskell code with QuickCheck.

If you're working in a datatype poor language, or simply one where the syntax makes defining complex datatypes painful then you're much more likely to pass around datatypes which are in implicitly defined. In this case you'll have to write a QuickCheck function to generate suitable instances in order to test your code. (This is also true for Haskell: there are often a few functions where you have to explain to QuickCheck how to generate appropriate test cases.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Anyone know what the "best compiler bug of all time" was?

<comment><USER21> It was something to do with the compiler deleting the source file if there was a type error within it.

<comment><USER22> Kamikaze programming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What is Reshaper in slide 35? Google suggests ReSharper, which seems more likely, since searching just for reshaper finds a pretty goofy product.

<comment><USER24> It's ReSharper from JetBrains. It's a widely used plugin for Visual Studio providing a handful of refactoring and productivity tools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Any reason to use C# instead of F#, considering F# is more functional?

Wonder if it has something to do with COM...

</comment><comment><USER8> A related talk: <http://vimeo.com/27192476> (video)

</comment><comment><USER26> Hackers News is boring because of this type of post. What is the purpose of your link?

<comment><USER27> Did you know that that was a slideshow? You're seeing the title page, click on it to advance to the next page. repeat.

<comment><USER5> Arrow keys also work.

<comment><USER22> That said, this is pretty poorly designed. I also had no clue what to do for the first few seconds after I clicked the link. It was only at slide 38/41 that I noticed the tiny, hidden controls on the very bottom blending into my status bar.

<comment><USER13> I didn't even notice those. Fortunately, I've worked with systems like S5 slideshows, and this looked a lot like a slideshow (no scroll bar, large text, numeric fragment in the URL).

Usability could definitely be better, but I will admit to writing up similarly boring slides in the past.

<comment><USER22> Compare this slideshow to the basic S5 slideshow at <http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/s5-intro.html> . A simple CSS template could solve the usability problem here.

<comment><USER28> I wonder why 280slides never really took off. This still seems like an unsolved problem (hosting slides online)

<comment><USER29> Slideshare and Scribd: both allow you to use the program you already know (Keynote or PowerPoint, most likely) that's also a native app with lots of powerful functionality.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nearly half of cellphone calls will be scams by 2019, report says - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/09/19/nearly-half-cellphone-calls-will-be-scams-by-report-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2cc1e3bb6837 <comment><USER2> I think its already >50% for me...</comment>


Geniuses Wanted: NASA Challenges Coders to Speed Up Its Supercomputer - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/science/nasa-supercomputer-pleiades.html <comment><USER2> There's also a comment on the earlier submission from a few hours ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14293414](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14293414)

</comment><comment><USER3> Geniuses Wanted: Only from USA...</comment>


The People Who Could Have Done Science Didn't - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/the-people-who-could-have-done-science-didnt/ <comment><USER2> I didn't because the chance of getting a permanent academic position is incredibly small and the pay and conditions are also poor.

<comment><USER3> You don't have to be in an academic position to do research</comment></comment>


You Are Not the Average Smartphone Consumer - <AUTHOR> http://blog.yafla.com/You_Are_Not_the_Average_Smartphone_Consumer/

<comment><USER2> What is it about issues like this that cause people (who generally have little direct financial stake) to take sides so heatedly and emotionally? It's bizarre, isn't it?

I know I at least always have a hard time deciding between top competing products. I anguished over the decision between iPhone and Android, but it was because of the different features represented, not any cultural thing. And I still readily recommend the iPhone to most people.

Is it pure tribalism? I heard John Siracusa talk at length in one of the early episodes of the Hypercritical podcast about Mac people having a sort of complex after watching the platform that they saw as clearly superior get crushed by Microsoft. But I see this manifest on both sides, and the emotional investment just seems really outlandish and disproportionate.

<comment><AUTHOR> It reminds me of the great lengths people will go to defend the honor of their favorite sports team.

Once people put their identity into something, they'll do and say crazy things to strengthen that.</comment></comment>


The Secret Ingredient in Orange Juice - <AUTHOR> http://www.foodrenegade.com/secret-ingredient-your-orange-juice/ <comment><USER3> "Juice removed from the fruit is just concentrated fructose without any of the naturally-occurring fiber, pectin, and other goodies that make eating a whole fruit good for you. Did you know, for example, that it takes 6-8 medium sized apples to make just 1 cup of apple juice? You probably wouldn't be able to eat 6-8 medium apples in a single sitting. (I know I can barely eat one!) But you can casually throw back a cup of apple juice, and you would probably be willing to return for seconds. That's why fruit juice is dangerous. It's far too easy to consume far too much sugar."

This paragraph is, arguably, far more important than all the hysteria about flavor packs, but it's only partially correct. Fibre does help provide satiety but, in and of itself, it isn't what's good for you about eating whole fruit unless you simply aren't getting enough fibre and have issues with constipation. What fibre _does_ do is reduce the rate at which we absorb sugar. Apple juice will give you a nice fast sugar high and then a low, much like candy. An apple will give you a gradual surge of energy for a while. If you're going to eat something sweet, it's far better for you if it comes combined with fibre.

So don't go searching for juice that doesn't use flavor packs. Don't buy a juicer and juice your own either, because you're still throwing away what separates fruit from candy. Don't mess around with fermenting juices and all that probiotic jazz. If you simply must drink your fruit, use a blender.

<comment><USER4> Well, my wife works for Martinelli's - and it definitely doesn't take 2+ apples to make a cup of apple juice. (I'm not saying that apple juice should be your first choice.) They also carefully monitor "brix", which is the amount of sugar in their juice. They have acceptable targets for that as well as other measures (including John Martinelli tasting the product almost daily.)

Personally, I use my Vitamix to make my own "apple juice smoothy" and routinely ferment fruit for the probiotics. But I'm skeptical about the "juice is bad" meme.

<comment><USER5> _But I 'm skeptical about the "juice is bad" meme._

It is and for a simple reason that we've known about for a long time: glycaemic index. If the sugars (fructose) are locked in a matrix of cellulose (AKA dietary fibre) they're released gradually as your body digests the bulk matter. If you plot the blood sugar concentration of the person consuming a solid piece of fruit you see a nice curve where the levels rise, peak, and non-violently fall.

Now when you process the fruit you're effectively pre-digesting it - <USER2> sugars are free of the cellulose matrix (the bulk of the fruit) and when you plot the blood sugar concentration after consumption of juice, because no work needs to be done to digest it, the blood sugar level quickly spikes. This provides a rush, then your insulin response peaks, sending your blood sugar levels crashing. This happens much faster than the curve in blood sugar from eating unprocessed fruit.

The only argument I'll accept from people who drink juice: They like it. _That 's OK._ You're allowed to like things. I like beer, which acts similarly to juice with regards to blood sugar concentration.

<comment><USER6> As I understand it, the process you describe is true of glucose but actually not fructose. Glucose gets absorbed into your blood, causes your pancreas to start releasing more insulin into the blood, which causes basically all the cells in your body to start absorbing glucose.

Fructose on the other hand can only be processed by your liver, so all the fructose you eat just kind of queues up for your liver to process it. It doesn't cause you to release insulin so it has a low glycemic index. Your liver can convert fructose to glycogen and then to glucose to feed your cells if you don't eat any carbs or glucose. But if you already have more than enough carbs/glucose, your liver instead converts the fructose to fat and stores it. This can lead to fatty liver and somewhat interestingly can also lead to insulin resistance which then makes you worse at processing glucose. Alcohol also gets processed exclusively in your liver and can cause fatty liver, so it is true that juice and beer can do a similar kind of damage.

Anyway, on the bigger point I 100% agree that juice is bad for you. It's sad to see it so often touted as healthy.

EDIT: One thing I do wonder about, people always point to fiber as a reason why fruit is ok but fruit juice isn't. It seems like it would be a lot easier to get people to start taking fiber supplements than to stop eating sugar, so why don't we ever hear that advice?

<comment><USER5> _Fructose on the other hand can only be processed by your liver_

You're correct and my original post is incorrect with regards to fructose. Thanks for pointing this out - it's better to be wrong but enlightened.

<comment><USER7> And that makes you're both right now!

Lustig goes through all the processes here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Having read the article I was left with the assumption that pretty much all commercial orange juice contained these "flavor packs". This does not seem to be the case: [http://www.toxinless.com/orange- juice](http://www.toxinless.com/orange-juice)

Maybe don't buy your orange juice from subsidiaries of the Coca Cola company and Pepsico, as a starting point.

Also interesting: [https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/2684u1/ysk_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/2684u1/ysk_that_the_use_of_flavor_packets_in_orange/)

<comment><USER9> Or water. I've always found Dasani to have a suspiciously consistent and unique flavor and mouth feel.

<comment><USER10> I'll just remark that for water, I do want to drink a pure chemical, possibly with a little bit of minerals in, if it can't be helped.

<comment><USER11> I hope you dont mean pure h2o because that's dangerous.

<comment><USER12> I am very curious about your comment. how is pure h20 dangerous?

<comment><USER13> Distilled water (pure) has such a low mineral/salt level that it pulls important salts out of your cells. Your body is mostly water, but it's mostly salty water.

<comment><USER14> Well... not while eating a healthy diet.

Total dissolved solids must be under 500mg/L in US drinking water supplies, and the highly regarded NYC water system delivers water with less than 50mg/L of total dissolved solids. Most of that is sodium chloride, calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate, classic tasty salts... all of which are readily available in foods.

See [http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wsstate13.pdf](http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wsstate13.pdf) for the 2013 water quality report; see table 1.

If you got distilled water instead, you'd notice the taste, but there wouldn't be a health problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On its face, I find this difficult to believe because why would any company pay to add massive amounts of chemicals to something to give it a taste that it has naturally? The most important point in the article is that storage in the oxygen-less tanks deprives the juice of its flavor. No proof is provided of this assertion. When I follow the source link I get a similar article [1] that then is sourced to a similar one [2], neither of which has and proof, other than the author's assertion. So I tried to track down the original. I found this article [3] which links the original expose to Dr. Oz (whatever) and to a book, _Squeezed: What you don't know about Orange Juice_ , and an interview with the author [4], where she asserts that the stored orange juice is flavorless, but we don't know if that's really true or not. Did she taste it? Reading the organic juice's page it seems clear that any 'flavor packs', which are made from orange peel and oils, are added to standardize the taste, rather than creating the taste, which seems to be a far more reasonable suggestion, but hardly something to feel alarm about.

[1] [https://christinescottcheng.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/tropica...](https://christinescottcheng.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/tropicana- orange-juice-flavor-packs-and-food-industry-lies/)

[2] [http://civileats.com/2009/05/06/freshly-squeezed-the- truth-a...](http://civileats.com/2009/05/06/freshly-squeezed-the-truth-about- orange-juice-in-boxes/)

[3][http://unclematts.com/resources/flavor-packet- faqs/](http://unclematts.com/resources/flavor-packet-faqs/)

[4][http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/02/22/...](http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/02/22/qa_with_alissa_hamilton/?page=full)

<comment><USER16> > any company pay to add massive amounts of chemicals to something to give it > a taste that it has naturally?

Unless they plan on selling the juice just during harvest time, they need to store it. Try and store some juice you squeezed from oranges even in the refrigerator and see how long it will last and how it will taste. It will last some but not for 6 months.

Consistency. Tropicana tastes one way, others taste different. I don't know why you need any proof, products will change flavor after they are stored for a while.

> add massive amounts of chemicals to something to give it

I'll have to throw the "sauce, please" back at you here ;-) I don't see where in the article it says these flavor packs are massive. Flavor compounds if done right will not be massive. Have you ever added spices or vanilla to anything you cook or bake. How much of the total volume is it? It usually isn't much.

> No proof is provided of this assertion.

I think it is rather common sense that it would lose flavor, at best it would have a different / strange flavor.

> hardly something to feel alarm about.

Really, you don't have any idea why someone might be a slightly worried about this class of additives put into a popular food that gets to skirt by regulations based on "technical" language.

<comment><USER17> Yes but what if you store it after removing the oxygen? And just the oxygen. It might last a lot longer. Then put it back at the end and taste it.

Industrial companies have a lot of resources and techniques available to them that the typical person making juice in their home does not. For example, what if they pasteurize the juice? Then it might also last longer, etc.

Some people react negatively to these sorts of scientific techniques out of what seems to be the naturalistic fallacy, a sort of (mistaken) belief that "natural things" (whatever that means) are intrinsically better.

<comment><USER18> There's no such thing as "take out all the oxygen". You can take a bunch, but after a point it get's hard and expensive to keep reducing oxygen concentrations to super low (not zero) levels.

<comment><USER17> Yes - presumably the goal is to reduce the dissolved oxygen levels low enough to halt or significantly slow whatever decay process affects the taste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This author has a history of being on the wrong side of science, and fear mongers on the harms of GMO. For example:

[http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto- gmos/](http://www.foodrenegade.com/peru-bans-monsanto-gmos/)

Just google GMO and this blog: [https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com](https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com)

<comment><USER20> Being Anti-GMO doesn't make someone on the wrong side of science.

The dangers of GMO from a economic perspective are worthy of worry on their own. If you haven't seen Food Inc, then I would recommend that as a starting point to learn how dangerous the monopolisation of the food industry can be to society. The farmers in Peru want to protect their existing biodiversity, something North America has lost thanks to Monsanto, where you cannot legally grow a heirloom corn crop without paying patent fees to monsanto because of the inevitable wind-born cross pollination, thereby violating monsanto patent rights.

<comment><USER19> Like the other commentator, the stated problems in your comment have nothing to do with GMO, they are a problem with a specific company and patent politics. I don't like software patents but I don't go around telling people software is dangerous and that they shouldn't use software.

<comment><USER20> If the software was a virus that infected other software you might.

Unfortunately the biggest GMO companies in the world have given GMO foods a bad name.

While GM technology does have hope for the future, like AI, it also poses risks. We need to take those risks seriously, and dismissing people anti-GM as being anti-science is FUD on your part.

There are dangers of eating GM food, but that doesn't mean the dangers come from the genes themselves. GM food such as roundup ready crops can have increased herbicide residue compared to non-GM crops.

We live in a world of corporate funded "science", so being skeptical of claims of 100% safety for GM organisms released into the wild isn't anti-science, it's just using the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle states that _if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action._

I think that is the correct approach to GM. The potential risks if things go wrong are huge and irreversible, wheres the need for GM food (if any) doesn't justify that risk until we have better scientific consensus.

<comment><USER19> What you're saying sounds like that in the absence of evidence that GMO causes harm you're just going believe whatever you want. There's no scientific basis to suspect GMO of causing harm to anything. Your suspicions are based on a big company being involved and oh my god it's made by people. Nature good, people bad. I don't share this sentiment. Aflotoxin is made by nature, it is bad for you. Very very bad. It occurs in everyday food. GMO has been shown by research to mitigate the presence of aflotoxin. GMO is a product of people. If they put GMO labels on stuff, I will be happy, because I will eat the GMO stuff. You can have your organic local peanut butter with its aflotoxins.

Also nobody forced farmers to by the GMO crops, they're buying it for a reason. They're buying it because it's good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I know this article is trying to "scare me with science," but it actually makes me proud that science allows for orange juice year round. Fresh is always better than not fresh, but this is something we as a society should be proud of, not ashamed.

<comment><USER22> When that "fresh" OJ has a fraction of the nutritional benefits of the real thing, is it even the same thing?

EDIT: [https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+vs+oranges) (Change Juice type to Orange

<comment><USER23> The claim that deoxygenated orange juice has a fraction of the nutritional benefits of hand-squeezed juice is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence, not blindly assumed.

<comment><USER22> I never realized Google do this themselves.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+vs+oranges) (change Juice type to Orange)

So we can see right off the bat the compared to Juice, oranges per unit volume have 12 times more dietary fiber, more vitamin A & C, almost 4 times more calcium.

That wasn't hard to find.

<comment><USER24> Fiber is not a nutrient; fiber is any part of a food which cannot be digested. It's no surprise that oranges have more pulp than orange juice.

As for micronutrients like vitamins, all of them can be destroyed by heat. All forms of cooking reduce the amount of vitamins in the food, and pasteurization is no exception. The trade-off is generally worth it, however, as it takes a fair amount of work to avoid enough foods that you end up with a deficiency, and the health benefits of killing the bacteria are so great.

Also, fruit juice has a lot of sugar in it; you don't want it to be too large a part of your diet anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is one of the little things that make me happy about the Netherlands: the local market chains sell lots of minimally industrialized products. Orange juice tastes fresh and will spoil in a couple of days. If you still don't trust it, there are machines where you can choose fruit and squeeze your own juice. And it's usually cheaper than the big-brand alternatives.

<comment><USER26> I've heard many times that ordering a freshly squeezed juice from those machines is not so safe, they need to clean them pretty often to prevent E. coli and other dangerous pathogens from spreading, and since the machines that are squeezing this juice are not kept in refrigirator while operating - spreading this pathogens becomes an easy task

<comment><USER27> You've "heard many times"? It's obviously safe enough that an entire country has one in every supermarket. Do you think that the health & safety service in The Netherlands is so bad that it wouldn't be noticed if these things were causing regular E. coli outbreaks?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > I'm not questioning the health or merit of added chemicals ("natural" or > "synthetic")

Oh good, I thought you were afraid of chemicals

>I'm questioning the health or merit of so-called foods that are so devoid of flavor or color that we have to add back in chemical flavorings and colors to make them palatable.

Wait what? I thought you weren't questioning the health or merit chemicals? People like orange juice (more specifically, not from concentrate), and the cheapest way to produce something that resembles that is to store them in oxygen-free vats and add back flavor packs. Who cares if chemicals were used to achieve that flavor?

<comment><AUTHOR> When consumers buy juice labelled "natural" or "100% juice" they expect juice that hasn't had anything added or taken away from it, especially not something that doesn't actually exist in nature.

The article was written to inform consumers about what they're actually getting and how they're getting deceived.

<comment><USER29> "Natural" has pretty much 0 value as a label. What is natural and not natural would vary depending on which person you ask the question on the street... This is just marketing.

<comment><USER30> There is a line past which an overwhelming majority of people would reasonably object to a "natural" or "100% juice" label on orange juice, in the same way that pure ethylvanillin could not reasonably be labeled 100% natural vanilla.

It seems clear to me that the label has _some_ value, it's just a matter of placing the line.

<comment><USER29> The label is unregulated. And for example my definition of natural is : appears in nature, without human intervention. By this definition, there is very few items items in a grocery shop that are natural... Any farming is unnatural for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was always confused as to why "100% orange juice not from concentrate" tasted so wildly different from fresh squeezed orange juice.

It's almost as if they are two completely separate drinks.

<comment><USER32> Trader Joe's has Unpasteurized Orange Juice which _does_ taste like freshly squeezed juice. I wonder how real _that_ is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I found this a little odd:

> Haven't you ever wondered why every glass of Tropicana Pure Premium orange > juice tastes the same, no matter where in the world you buy it or what time > of year you're drinking it in? Or maybe your brand of choice is Minute Maid > or Simply Orange or Florida's Natural. Either way, I can ask the same > question. Why is the taste and flavor so consistent?

And then

> The packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to > contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh > squeezed orange juice that, juice companies have discovered, Americans > favor. Mexicans and Brazilians have a different palate. Flavor packs > fabricated for juice geared to these markets therefore highlight different > chemicals

<comment><USER34> Do you often shop at an American grocery store and then immediately at a Mexican or Brazilian grocery store?

<comment><USER33> No, but I'm not the one who claimed that orange juice from a given brand tastes the same no matter where in the world you buy it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Another lesson is that if you're going to buy industrial food (and it's something we're all going to do sometimes since it's an efficient way to make convenient food available at scale), it's better to go with something that doesn't hide what it is.

It's one reason why I'm a fan of Soylent. I hope it starts a trend where we get we get honest industrial food instead of fake natural food. I'm not not at all convinced that their product is unique, but I hope it starts a trend, where manufacturers don't hide the fact that flavor and nutrition need to be designed in, and instead try to explain why the design they chose is the best design.

<comment><USER36> I really like Soylent and what Rosa Labs is doing, but I don't believe that they are a paragon of transparency. Some countries (e.g. Australia) require food products to be labeled with the percentage of each ingredient by mass, not just a list of ingredients in descending order, and I don't see that on my Soylent pouches.

As demonstrated by OP's example, "honest industrial food" is incompatible with the economic principles under which the industry operates. Companies emphasize the information that makes their product more appealing, while concealing information that would aid their competitors or dissuade some consumers.

Generally, food makers will only disclose the information that they are compelled to by law, and even then, they employ teams of food scientists and lawyers to maximize what can be hidden behind a label that is still technically compliant.

<comment><USER35> We can still support companies that are more open than the minimum required by law. I think it will be a long time before it's mainstream, but it may be enough to keep a niche market going.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Is there any actual evidence that MSG should be "cause for concern"?

<comment><USER38> No. None whatsoever. MSG is just the sodium salt of glutamic acid. Just like table salt breaks down into its constituent sodium and chlorine in water, MSG breaks down into sodium and glutamic acid, the latter of which is in high quantities in beef, poultry, eggs, fish, dairy, and so on.

Fear of MSG is, chemically speaking, utter nonsense.

<comment><USER39> I lost any confidence I had in the author when I saw that line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40>
        > I'm sure you're careful to buy the kind that's 100%
        > juice and not made from concentrate. After all,
        > that's the healthier kind, right?

If you're going to drink sugar water, it's unlikely to make much difference if it came straight from an orange or from concentrate. It seems a bit like worrying about whether your cigarette papers were naturally bleached or not.

        > flavor packs are made from orange by-products — even though
        > these 'by-products' are so chemically manipulated that they
        > hardly qualify as 'by-products' any more.

I would love to know what that actually means, other than being scare-quote- tastic. How does something stop qualifying as a by-product?

        > Yet those in the industry will tell you that the flavor
        > packs, whether made for reconstituted or pasteurized orange
        > juice, resemble nothing found in nature

The pork sausages I buy come exlusively from pigs, herbs, and onions, and yet they also "resemeble nothing found in nature", unless Big Feline has invented meat grinders while we weren't watching.

</comment><comment><USER41> If the juice is based on the use of flavor packs, then it is, to some extent, "made from concentrate"; if it is labeled as "not from concentrate", then that is a flat out lie.

<comment><USER42> I suspect "concentrate" simply has a legal definition that excludes flavour packs - in fact, doesn't the article say as much? The tricky thing about labeling is that there's obviously a line and the level of detail required will vary according to the beholder. I suspect there are far worse offenders in the food industry and, as the article implies, drinking fruit juice anyway isn't automatically a 'healthy' option; the concentrate/non-/flavour-pack distinction is probably relatively insignificant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The best orange juice I ever had was on the streets of Marakesh. It's freakin' amazing, hard to describe actually. I never before or after this visit had that good of a orange juice.

[https://www.google.se/search?q=marakesh+orange+juice&tbm=isc...](https://www.google.se/search?q=marakesh+orange+juice&tbm=isch)

<comment><USER44> One thing that affects perception of flavour more than anything else is how hungry and thirsty you are. Not that the orange juice in Marrakech isn't great (I've had it), but if you're really thirsty whatever you drink is going to taste amazing. Same goes for being really hungry and food.

What's interesting is that these perceptions persist even when you have those foods again. Having been exhausted and very hungry once and having had fish & chips afterwards, that flavour (of fish 'n chip-shop deep fried cod and greasy chips) still knocks me over every time I have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> You should also watch this CBC Marketplace episode on the secrets behind Orange Juice. Quite revealing.

[http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/orange- juic...](http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/orange-juice-juicy- secrets)

</comment><comment><USER46> My father grew up on an orange grove in Lebanon and ate lots of citrus fruit and drank a good amount of juice as a child . Living in the New Jersey for the majority of his adult life he always said that the frozen concentrate orange juice tastes the best; and it looked like orange juice . He always disliked the bottled juice , saying it didn't taste right to him, and it was too damn expensive. As I grew up I noticed that Tropcana and Minute Maid cartons gave me horrible indigestion, so I gave up on orange juice . I told my dad about this and he reminded me of two things one this is what you get when a large company makes food , people in suits with MBAs tell chemical engineers to make me a more profitable product . Two don't drink orange juice, stick to coffee , it has caffeine. Ymmv

</comment><comment><USER47> There was an interesting CBC News show on this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e4CEm9yybo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e4CEm9yybo)

The most interesting thing was that people were so used to the taste of the processed OJ that they preferred it to the fresh squeezed OJ.

<comment><USER41> Some people even prefer tastes that are _obviously_ artificial, like Sunny Delight ("Sunny D" in some places) or Tang crystals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> So they don't have to list the flavor packets as ingredients. But why are they allowed to advertise "100% pure premium Florida orange juice"?

<comment><USER49> I think it's because the flavor packets are also made from 100% Florida orange juice, even if it's just extracts processed from oranges, not the raw juice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I've wondered why the fresh orange juice machines you see in Spain commonly are never seen in the United States. Is there a food safety law that prevents this or is it just a matter of preference?

<comment><USER51> Some places in the US have them, but usually they are commercial units. For most Americans that shop for staples one every week or two a gallon of pasteurized juice that keeps for two weeks under refrigeration is great compared to oranges that would not last nearly as long. OJ is a common component of breakfast but our shopping habits do not support fresh juice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> i'm not sure i care that much tbh.

this is a tiny part of the price i pay for being able to buy it in a shop from bulk suppliers rather than having to juice my own fruit... besides that, i don't think its a heavy price to pay - i'm not sure i really see the harm tbh.

its not like they are flavouring it with deadly toxic poisons.

<comment><USER53> For me, it just doesn't taste nearly as good. Try it fresh if you haven't recently. It's barely the same beverage at all.

<comment><USER52> oh sure. this is definitely the case... but we all notice this right? its not really a secret and i don't think it needs scaremongering about.

i can remember asking my parents about this 20+ years ago the first time we bothered to squeeze our own juice, as the first response after tasting it... they didn't give me a page of information about the process exactly but it seems obvious that they knew this already from past experience.

i guess maybe there is a problem today that people just won't even try fresh orange juice...

<comment><USER53> Yeah I used to take it for granted, but I remember vividly how shocked and impressed a friend was (in my childhood, granted) when he tried fresh OJ for the first time. It was a transformative revelation.

I still find restaurants that claim to have fresh OJ when it's clearly not. I can see how it would slip through the cracks of some people's experiences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Very interesting reading. I've gotten many migraine headaches over the years that I can only correlate to having consumed major brand name orange juices. Minute Maid, Tropicana, that kind of stuff.

Since realizing this, I've stuck to plain old oranges and fresh squeezed OJ and not had a problem. The link between consumer OJ and my migraines, if one exists at all, never made sense ("it's just crushed oranges, after all") until now.

So, theoretically at least, my body could have a bad reaction to whatever is in the flavor packs that are used to make the tasteless juice taste more like real orange juice.

</comment><comment><USER55> What I really hate about re-flavored juices is that we grow the fruits in the first place. It seems like a waste to spend all this effort growing a fruit tree, watering it, pruning it, grafting it, and applying pesticides, herbicides and fungicides only to have the final product just ground up for the sugars. I hope at the very least farmers are using orange cultivars we consumers don't like to eat and taking the subpar oranges from a harvest before they deoxygenate the juices and throw out the rest.

</comment><comment><USER56> If you don't care for how your OJ is processed, you should _really_ dislike that bottle of wine, too.

 _Sulfur Dioxide The most widely used wine additive. It kills microbes and prevents oxidation. Few vintners dare to bottle a wine without it, but overuse can make a vino stink like burnt matches.

Ammonium Salts A touch of diammonium phosphate revives dying yeast and keeps it from producing too much sulfur.

Water If a batch of vino ends up a bit too boozy, just add some water.

Oak adjuncts Oak barrels can make wine taste drier and lend it notes of vanilla, but they're expensive. A cheaper alternative? Oak chips, sawdust, or "essence"—a liquefied wood product that can be added directly to an otherwise finished wine.

Tartaric Acid A naturally occurring acid found in grapes, it's particularly critical in white wines, where tartness gives each sip a pleasing snap. Wines with insufficient acidity can get a boost from powdered tartaric acid.

Powdered Tannin Naturally present in grape skins and seeds as well as oak, tannin creates texture and astringency. Typically made from a growth on oak trees called a nutgall, powdered tannin can punch up lackluster wine.

Sugar If grapes aren't ripe enough when picked, adding cane or beet sugar to the must can help them ferment. The catch: Adding sugar, called chaptalization, is illegal in California, Italy, and Australia. (It's legal in New Zealand, Oregon, and parts of France, though allowed amounts vary.)

Pectic Enzymes Complex proteins that can be used to alter color, improve clarity, release aromatic compounds, and speed up aging.

Gum Arabic Made from the sap of the acacia tree, gum arabic softens tannins to reduce astringency and make the wine's body more silky. This can make a tough and somewhat bitter red wine ready to drink immediately.

Velcorin (dimethyl dicarbonate) First introduced in the 1980s—though increasingly controversial—this microbial control agent can kill a half-dozen wine-ruining bacteria and yeasts when added in minute quantities. It's also widely used in fruit juices.

Mega Purple Made from the concentrated syrup of Rubired grapes, Mega Purple is a thick goo that winemakers rely on to correct color issues—a few drops can turn a bottle of wine from a weak salmon blush to an appealingly intense crimson—and to make a wine look consistent from batch to batch. In a 119-liter wine barrel, just 200 milliliters is enough to do the trick. Mega Purple is made by Constellation Brands, the company behind famous labels like Robert Mondavi and Ravenswood. While on the record no one will cop to using it (or any other additive), industry insiders say that even high-end winemakers have employed it to deepen the color of their wines, a trait that connotes richness and quality, earns better ratings from critics, and commands higher bottle prices._

[1][http://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-to-make-wine-taste- good/](http://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-to-make-wine-taste-good/)

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing that really surprised me about the ingredients of wine is that animal products are often used. For example, isinglass[1] and other animal products which many vegetarians would usually avoid.[2]

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass)

[2] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_wine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_wine)

<comment><USER57> Isinglass is _used_ , but it isn't an ingredient - it's more like a flux, something for suspended yeast and proteins to get stuck to so it will settle out. That doesn't mean that vegan types shouldn't object to its use, but it doesn't remain part of the wine (it can only be found in the dregs).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The home vs shop bought items rings true. I can make a bean burger without much effort. And I have a good idea what went into it. But if I buy one, I'm not sure how old the ingredients are, how long they have been stored and what other processes those foods have been through.

I have gotten it into my head that these are pretty much low-nutrition non- foods, and as such, I only eat them on the rare occasion.

</comment><comment><USER59> I buy a heap of organic oranges each week and make my own juice - which tastes awesome. I don't buy bottled OJ anymore and I have found that non-organic oranges tend to be always mysteriously bigger, have heaps more pulp to deal with and just don't taste as good.

And I always found the OJ to have a very distinct and unusual taste when in the US.

</comment><comment><USER60> Uncle Matt's costs a couple bucks more, but doesn't use flavor packets. They store their juice in frozen drums in the off-season: [http://unclematts.com/resources/flavor-packet- faqs/](http://unclematts.com/resources/flavor-packet-faqs/)

</comment><comment><USER61> Well, that explains some things.

Being brazilian, I find US "orange juice" to be TERRIBLE. So yeah, we do have different tastes in juice.

Nothing beats freshly squeezed juice, as in just squeezed. Try to drink it one hour later and it will have changed the taste already.

</comment><comment><USER62> Regardless of how you feel about additives, healthiness of juice or whatever, you should at least want your food labels to be honest and accurate. To me that's really what I take away from food posts about ingredients, GMOs, etc.

<comment><USER63> You need to understand how this works. First, it's "if GMOs are safe, why do you want to hide it by refusing to label?". Then, when you start putting it on labels, the narrative changes to "if GMOs are safe, then why are you warning us about them by putting them on labels?".

<comment><USER62> Withholding the information sure doesn't seem very "scientific" to me. It seems like the opposite of what science is about.

<comment><USER63> You have to ask yourself, why are you privileging _this particular_ information over everything else that could be on the label? They can't reasonably print everything that's in the food, _especially_ if any part of it contains pieces of plants or animals - the living stuff has so much chemistry in it that you'd have to attach a book to each product to just list them. So producers already have to be picky.

Also, I'm not against labeling that the product is GMO-based. I want to point out at the dynamics around GMO labeling; their most vocal proponents create "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.

<comment><USER62> Why do we put vitamin C on the label? Why sugar content? Why not carbon atoms? Why anything? The FDA (supposedly) requires labels for things that are considered important by health professionals and consumers. If enough people want to know about GMOs, then it's important. Not labeling GMOs or any other ingredients or by-products that might be seen as "gross" to the consumer, is only about protecting the food manufacturers.

I think it's a BS argument anyway because the average consumer, given two bags of apples that look identical, is going to buy the one that is cheaper. And if for some reason the public decided to never touch GMOs, then so be it. Food manufacturers can make their products in a way that consumers want to buy them. That's a free market. Not being shady and hiding information.

<comment><USER63> > _I think it 's a BS argument anyway because the average consumer, given two > bags of apples that look identical, is going to buy the one that is > cheaper._

Yeah, I agree.

> _And if for some reason the public decided to never touch GMOs, then so be > it. Food manufacturers can make their products in a way that consumers want > to buy them. That 's a free market. Not being shady and hiding information._

So they do, and that's why we have organic food industry, which is even more shady than the original one. The reason we have this argument is that looking at _why_ public decided to never touch GMOs makes one facepalm. It's mostly pseudo-science wrapped in FUD, perpetuated ad nauseam in popular press - creating fear and then playing off it. It's good for making money selling articles or ad views. It's not good for making this planet a better place for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Most fruit juices are unhealthy because of their high sugar, low fiber content. Buy them from the store and they are even more unhealthy. A better option is probably to make shakes (throw the whole fruit in).

</comment><comment><USER65> Frustrating that we either give up on natural foods or on the economies of scale and industrialization.

With two incomes and 3 kids, my family has no time for homemade organic fermented (!?) Lemonade.

</comment><comment><USER66> This is why I only drink Orange Drink..

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuTjQLfU6Gk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuTjQLfU6Gk)

</comment><comment> ju-st So orange juice made from concentrate is better/good?

<comment><USER67> I remember reading years ago about studies that said exactly that, not just about oranges but about vegetables in general. Freezing is a great way to preserve all sorts of compounds including vitamin C.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> This is turning into reddit with all these clickbaits.

</comment><comment><USER69> In the UK I just stick to Innocent drinks who don't use any of that stuff. I love how they just use pictures on the labels :)

<comment><USER70> I used to love Innocent and everything they stood for but I have to admit I've been shying away from them since they became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coca-Cola... :(

<comment><USER69> True, it's not the best owner but they seem to be able to stick to their values which is nice

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Article seems interesting but damn all the javascript tracking shit make it a pain to read on a oldish iphone (5s)

</comment><comment><USER71> Next up for deceptive labeling: GMO Salmon

[http://consumerist.com/2015/11/19/fda-signs-off-on- genetical...](http://consumerist.com/2015/11/19/fda-signs-off-on-genetically- modified-salmon-without-labeling/)

</comment><comment><USER58> If I ever buy shop bought tomato pasta sauces, there is a flavour in most that repulses me. It's something I can't recreate with home cooking. So this post does make me think that it could be something like a flavour pack. I always thought it was a preservative.

</comment><comment><USER58> Is this a U.S. thing? Is it the same in the U.K.?

</comment><comment><USER65> So is the frozen concentrate better or worse?

</comment><comment><USER72> I usually mix my juices with about 40% water before I drink them.

</comment><comment><USER73> > Do you buy orange juice at the store? If you do, I'm sure you're careful to > buy the kind that's 100% juice and not made from concentrate. After all, > that's the healthier kind, right? The more natural kind? The kind without > any additives? The kind that's sold in the refrigerator section so it must > be almost as good as fresh-squeezed orange juice?

I'll tell my experience when visiting the US a few years ago. I'm from the Netherlands, and here almost all orange juice is "from concentrate"[0].

It doesn't _quite_ taste like freshly pressed juice, but I was never quite able to put my finger on it what was missing.

In the US I saw cartons of "actual really real juice not from concentrate really" for the first time, in a Whole Foods supermarket in Manhattan, NYC. So I got one of those and it was delicious. Still not _quite_ like fresh juice, but really close.

(I don't think you can actually get the "real fresh orange juice" experience if you don't have fingers that smell like orange peel, and this vague worry that you should really wipe the kitchen counter before it'll dry all sticky)

So two days later I got another, different brand carton of "actually really real juice for realness totally not concentrate really". And it tasted pretty much like the "from concentrate" stuff at home (which still isn't bad, IMHO-- unlike that "nectar" crap).

Next time at the same Whole Foods supermarket, I took a good look, and discovered there's basically (at least) two kinds of orange juice in the US: made from oranges in Florida, and made from oranges in Brazil (I think it was Brazil, 98% sure).

Now it made sense to me. In the Netherlands, nearly _all_ our orange juice is from Brazil (afaik). And it was the "real juice not from concentrate" stuff from Florida oranges that was the juice that tasted (to me) mostly like fresh juice. And the Brazilian "real juice not from concentrate" that tasted like the "from concentrate" stuff at home.

Unfortunately I couldn't completely test the theory that maybe Florida oranges just juice better, concentrate or not, because at this particular Whole Foods I couldn't find any "Florida orange juice from concentrate". I'd have totally bought it to test the experiment, but I just couldn't spot any.

Does this make sense to any US-people? That have more time to buy and try different types of OJ? :-) Otherwise, just disregard this N=1 anecdote (but do let me know :P)

[0] There's an even cheaper kind called "orange nectar" which is half juice- from-concentrate plus water and some sugar/sweetener, but I can't imagine why anyone would buy that, ever. You can add water to juice at home without the sugar and it'll taste better, be cheaper, and healthier.

<comment><USER74> The article mentions the different chemicals favored by palates in different regions, so maybe you're just accustomed to the NL chemicals rather than the US ones.

<comment><USER73> That's very possible. Which would mean the Brazilian flavour packs are similar to the Dutch ones.

Though my main point was wondering whether "100% juice from concentrate" versus "real 100% juice _not_ from concentrate" matters a lot for the flavour.

The Brazilian-oranges juice I bought in the US was _not_ -from-concentrate, but still tasted very similar to the NL 100%-juice-from-concentrate stuff. While the Floridian-orange juice _not_ -from-concentrate did almost like fresh juice.

It's not like I didn't like them btw. I don't expect it to taste like fresh juice anyway :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> TL;DR: producers store juice in oxygen-less tanks, for up to one year, then add natural/synthetic chemicals, to restore taste, prior to distribution. The author suggests people make their own juice, instead.

<comment><USER76> I'm really starting to wonder what the point of juice even is.

If you want fruit, eat fruit. If you want a drink, drink some water. Why combine the two?

Fruit juice seems like basically a way to drink soda but with the delusion that it's good for you.

<comment><USER77> You have never felt the desire for a tart citrus beverage?

<comment><USER76> Not since I came to understand what fruit juice actually is. If I want health I'll eat the actual fruit, and if I want a tasty-but-unhealthy drink I just drink soda.

Sure, the stuff tastes OK, but not as good as the fruit it comes from.

<comment><USER78> That's the thing, I love fresh orange juice. It tastes great. I do not really like Orange juice and I absolutely loath soda (it tastes awful). So I drink Orange Juice (and Apple Juice) because it tastes great.

<comment><USER76> Better than the actual orange?

<comment><USER79> Better brands of orange juice are more refreshing than the terrible, fibrous oranges that are available here for most of the year. I'd rather drink lemonade than eat a lemon, too, for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Portland much?

</comment><comment><USER81> Love! It's love, isn't it?

</comment><comment><USER82> It seems like nothing you can buy in a supermarket is healthly.

<comment><USER83> It really depends on the specific super market you visit.

Some of them are really bad. Others are really incredibly and amazingly good.

The fresher the food, and the greater the variety of products, the better. Some chains seem to stock just massive amounts of commodity agribusiness food, but more selective stores will put in the extra work, and provide a rotating selection among many different options, and limit the mass-produced factory food.

Sometimes, within the same chain, it can boil down to the managers and the degree of control they have over stocking the shelves, or the amount of effort they're interested in investing in (or believe in the value of) putting thought into the products they stock. In New York City, there is a HUGE degree of variation WITHIN CHAINS, varying from neighborhood to neighborhood.

So, if none of the stores within your town are great, maybe try the next town over? You might notice a big difference, even if the sign outside is the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> To those who aren't religious like this author Coke is always better than juice. It has caffeine in it a least which is good for you.

Of course sugar free Coke is close to good for you compared to the toxic juices and Coke.

Water is only better than sugar free coke in that it teaches you not to continuous rely on the addictive sugary taste and better on your teeth.

<comment><USER85> Do you really believe this?</comment></comment>


The Shelf Life of John Mackey - <AUTHOR> http://features.texasmonthly.com/editorial/shelf-life-john-mackey/ <comment><USER2> Very ELI5 question:

> When a company hits an extended rough patch and its stock price slides into > a trough and stays there for a while, a special class of opportunistic > investors—hedge funds and so-called activist investors like Jana > Partners—stands ready to pounce. They buy up large chunks of the stock, > enough to give them some bully power, and try to force the company to make > changes that could increase the stock's value, preferably quickly. That > might mean selling the company, breaking it apart, forcing cost cuts, > replacing leaders, or other often drastic measures. If the activists can > rally other shareholders to join their cause, the company may have no choice > but to acquiesce, at least to some degree.

Why does owning shares automatically mean having power over a company?

Is there no way to say "You buy shares, and the only right you acquire by it is participating in share price increases and an optional dividend we decide to pay or not"?

<comment><USER3> _> Is there no way to say "You buy [non-voting shares]"_

Yes, you can have multiple classes of shares[1], but the tradeoff is it makes the shares less desirable for investors. This means the pricing of shares will be lower (or possibly unsaleable) and you won't raise as much capital as you intended. If you have a company considering an IPO, your investment banker (e.g. Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, etc) will advise if the marketplace is willing to buy your non-voting shares.

Facebook is an interesting example of having 3 classes of shares:

      Class A - 1 vote per share
      Class B - 10 votes per share (MZ holds these)
      Class C - 0 votes

Facebook did not issue Class C when they went public in 2012. The non-voting shares were created in 2016.[2] Snap Inc on the other hand, issued non-voting shares right at the IPO.

When you're a glamorous high-flying tech company, it's easier to entice investors with the less-desirable non-voting shares. Could Whole Foods have issued non-voting shares at IPO in 1992? They would have had to have agreement from their investment bank to underwrite them and market interest from the first wave of investors to buy them. You can't always have your cake (significant capital funding) and eat it too (outside investors get 0 votes).

[1] [http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.a...](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/092204.asp)

[2] [http://www.nasdaq.com/g00/article/facebook-shareholders- appr...](http://www.nasdaq.com/g00/article/facebook-shareholders-approve- creation-of-class-c-shares-cm638528)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Texas monthly is one of those pubs that stands out.

It must be hell for mackey to lose/give everything.

The article is worth a read

<comment><USER5> They do terrific long-form reporting.

My guess is that he'll become an Amazon employee like Tony Hsieh did and continue to run the business. At least until he finds something else he wants to do more than that.

He'll get a windfall from the sale of course. And he'll probably start a charitable foundation, or perhaps join another one (like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and only keep his current $100mm to live on. Which is "enough" for most purposes.

I've stopped by the new 365 store in Cedar Park (a suburb north of Austin) and I find that it's less intimidating than the mothership at Lamar & 6th. I hope the concept does well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A prescient article. I hope this publication will be able to do a follow up some time later, once things settle.

I also wonder: My understanding is that many recent tech IPOs are structured such that most investors have limited ability to activist-invest in a company (like what is happening with Whole Foods). Is that (at least partially) because those CxOs have seen this happen before, and don't want it to happen to them?</comment>